Believe me Nickle, my comment was specifically directed at the people who claimed the bust was a legitimate Mafia bust. And you’ve explained the situation incredibly well Nickle. Better than I could. And there’s no doubt the Ciminelli family has connections to the mob as do most construction bigwigs from the 1990s. But I think that what some posters (not you) do not understand is that the mob does not define corruption nor is it solely responsible for corruption. Even as the mob dies, corruption continues. I think it should surprise nobody that contractors with ties to the mob are still committing the same type of crimes in the 21st century, in the absence of the mob. In fact, without the mob taking a tribute, they can make far more money than before. I don’t think Ciminelli is the only formerly mobbed-up contractor still doing dodgy deals. Upstate NY is one of the most corrupt regions of America in terms of construction. But I simply don’t think it even POINTS to the idea that the mafia is still active. If anything, I think it HURTS the notion the mafia is still active because there was a lengthy investigation with a cooperating witness that still didn’t uncover any Mafia ties, and we’ve seen in the past that prosecutors love to bring up the Mafia at any chance they get.
Sorry I took you wrong. A few people on this and BH forums have been a bit brutal about my belief Buffalo is active because I allow "street talk" and "circumstantial evidence" into my consideration of the topic, because I believe the the LE, new source, and facts only approach can be and is insufficient at times, especially when considering corruption.
I find it interesting that some who take this strict "established facts only" approach OC do not apply it to their consideration of the political sphere (i.e. Cuomo). They are quick to suggest corruption on his part while citing circumstantial evidence, but the facts, news stories, and LE (at least right now) indicate otherwise. I'd like for them to understand the double standard in their logic that they are applying to these two situations.
A good point Nickle, but did I ever suggest corruption on Cuomo's part? Not saying for sure I didn't, I might have let something slip, but I'm pretty sure I didn't.
Originally Posted by NickleCity
Why is the LE/Facts/Trusted News source approach insufficient at times?
The Ciminellis are a good example. I was on the Real Deal many years ago, and was ripped a new one for making the suggestion that the Ciminelli family had been connected. People told me just because they have a vowel in their last name doesn't mean they were. Yet for two generations "street talk" in Buffalo indicated otherwise, even though their were no established facts, articles, indictments, & etc. to verify the "word on the street. There was only circumstantial evidence. Yet today, after Fino's book was published, most will readily admit they were connected in some way.
It is one thing to say the Ciminellis were connected because that, prior to Ron Fino's book, had never been proven one way or the other. So, whilst people might dismiss it as street talk, it's still an allegation that has never been explicitly proven wrong. It's just a rumor. But if you were to say something alone the lines of "The Gotti family were never involved in drugs," that is another thing because it has directly been proven wrong (i.e. the Gene Gotti arrest and conviction).
That is what we have here with the Buffalo thing. If you tell me Frank Bifulco is still very involved in racketeering and criminal activities, then hey, that makes sense, the guy is a career gangster. But if you tell me Bifulco is the leader of the Buffalo crime family, that's where I can say that all facets of law enforcement and journalism have concluded the Buffalo Mafia is done for, dead as a doorknob.
